speaking of mccain.. did anyone see the TV funhouse cartoon on saturday night live this weekend? it showed mccain having to introduce dubya at a campaign rally, and how much torture he has to go thru to do so. it was pretty dang funny. they might play it again tonight on the SNL primetime special on NBC. look for it.. worth a good laugh.

BTW- i saw tim russert on TV this morning, and he seemed genuinely clueless about the outcome of the election. he had almost a boyish excitement, in the prospect of watching history happen right before him. it was obvious that he was not willing to call a winner.

my prediction... kerry takes florida and ohio, and maybe pennsylvania, and its over...

Unfortunately, today is an extremely busy day for me at work - so I may not be able to get around to all y'all, but I'm sure as hell gonna try.

pmb, you're not disputing that Kerry has used specific events related to the war to criticize Bush, without regard to the effects such criticism has had on the war effort or the security of our troops, but you assert that I cannot deem such tactics unAmerican? Would "unpatriotic" be better? "disingenuous"? "counter-productive"? You pick the word, but Kerry's words and actions do not support his fellow Americans.

Whatever the Bush campaign did to unfairly smear McCain (my choice for Pres in the 2000 primary, btw ) may qualify as low, cheap, dirty, etc..., but it is not in the same league with what the Kerry campaign and leftist analysts have done regarding the war. If Bush & Co wanted to use the Iraq war like the Kerry campaign, they could. How about this:

Yesterday's carbombing that killed 8-9 US Marines (our fellow Americans) was a direct result of Kerry embracing the IAEA story regarding the missing 377 tons of explosives. Kerry ran a 30 second spot slamming Bush over the missing explosives and the next day insurgents detonated a truly massive carbomb far beyond the scale of previous carbombs. Clearly the intent was to help substantiate Kerry's attacks on Bush. If Kerry (and his lackeys in the media) hadn't politicized the missing explosives, the bombing would not have happened and our boys would be alive at this moment. I don't have any facts to support this theory, but a lack of factual evidence hasn't seemed to stop the Kerry campaign from making similar accusations against Bush.

"Kerry has no choice but to continue the war. To pull out now would prove disastrous in Iraq. Bush got us into this mess, but quite frankly I don't trust him to get us out of it. And frankly putting more troops on the ground makes sense in speeding up the process of training Iraqis and hastening our exit."

The military is running the war in Iraq, not Bush. I think it's been a pretty stunning success, but I would hope that the commander-in-chief would pull us out of any war he thought was a "mistake". It would be more of a mistake to continue to fight such a war than to pullout. The entire Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists, why not return Iraq to that fold if you feel the war is a mistake?

"Why change? Because, for one, we believe the current president and his administration have made a lot of very big mistakes in dealing with this war, and in turn have refused to acknowledge those mistakes or opposing opinions, even when coming from highly knowledgable people. The war on terror is legitimate. The war in Iraq was not, in the eyes of many Americans, the next logical step in the war on terror. The administration used bad information to send our men and women to die and that war has cost us $200 BILLION."

It is clear you think the war was a mistake, but what "very big mistakes" has the administration made? They have control of most of the country, the gov't, the oil fields, etc...? The Iraqi people are enlisting en masse in the new armed forces to regain sovereignty. What experts have more credibility than the experts prosecuting the war? Certainly not Clark (he's a politician!) or Bremer (he's a civilian!).

Once again, if the real reason to prefer Kerry over Bush is on domestic issues, then that should be the subject of debate, and the subject of Kerry's campaign.

Yesterday's carbombing that killed 8-9 US Marines (our fellow Americans) was a direct result of Kerry embracing the IAEA story regarding the missing 377 tons of explosives. [snip] If Kerry (and his lackeys in the media) hadn't politicized the missing explosives, the bombing would not have happened and our boys would be alive at this moment. I don't have any facts to support this theory, but a lack of factual evidence hasn't seemed to stop the Kerry campaign from making similar accusations against Bush.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush campaign DID say exactly that. After all, the are constantly on the lookout for scapegoats and other people to take the blame for their lack of detail-oriented planning.

Are you saying this latest mistake (one which Giuliani blames our troops for, BTW) should not have been publicized, or that it is not an obvious campaign issue for Kerry to stress? What "lack fo factual evidence" are you referring to in regards to Kerry's campaign attacks on Bush? I'm not saying none exists -- both campaign have used poetic license -- I'd just like an example

By your choice of language, you've obviously fallen into the trap of dehumanizing/de-Americanizing Kerry and his supporters. "Kerry's media lackey's" is just the latest example. I know you like the support the sitting president, so I'll seriously feel for you if Kerry wins: you'll need to do some serious mental gymnastics to escape from the ideological hole you've wedged yourself into.

_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Hmmmm. Are you aware that since Vietnam, Donald Rumsfeld has been on a crusade to put more and more control of the military into civilian (read his) hands, in effect taking decisions out of the hands of the high-up brass? Bush's cabinet has more control of the military than you might think.

1975 - 1977: Much of what Rumsfeld is fighting for in his first term as secretary of defense mirrors his efforts in the George W. Bush administration 25 years later. According to Bob Woodward, Rumsfeld's drive for total control when he would return to the office decades later "stemmed from his experience and deep frustration" with his first posting at Defense. "Rumsfeld was secretary for only 14 months…. Only 44 at the time, he had found the Pentagon difficult and almost unmanageable." In an interview with Woodward years later, Rumsfeld will tell him that the job of secretary of defense in the 1970s was too "ambiguous" because there is only "a thin layer of civilian control" at the Pentagon. When Rumsfeld returns to the Pentagon in 2001, he will make sure that this is no longer true.

2001: Immediately after taking office, Rumsfeld begins to reassert civilian control over the Pentagon, a department that had been run by the uniform military in recent years. "It was a pretty tough process," says Thomas Ricks, "A lot of friction in those first months, with Rumsfeld saying, 'No, I don't think you heard me clearly. I'm the boss. I want to do it this way'." He undertakes an exhaustive review of all of the military's contingency plans and personally interviews candidates for promotion at the highest levels. Says Ricks, "[There was] a lot of resentment of that in the military."

_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

"I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush campaign DID say exactly that. After all, the are constantly on the lookout for scapegoats and other people to take the blame for their lack of detail-oriented planning."

You really believe that? I'm guessing not. What scapegoats? What lack of planning? Ask the Russians how well we planned in Afghanistan. Ask the Iranians how well we planned in Iraq. If Rumsfeld is responsible for the BRILLIANT military successes in these two campaigns then he needs to stay put (Kerry said the winning of the war in Iraq was "brilliant", too, didn't he? ).

Who is Guliani in the Presidential race? Regardless, he was stating that for Kerry to criticize the POTENTIAL loss of those munitions, it is actually a critique of the military and not Bush. Would you also blame Bush for the wrong turn Jessica Lynch and her convoy took? Maybe he should have given them a call to make sure they knew where they were going? Blame FDR for the landing craft operators on D-Day who dropped their soldiers in 20 feet of water? "FDR planned for the invasion, but not the swim to shore?"

You CANNOT deny that the media has given Kerry favorable treatment, and simultaneously blasted Bush for his entire term. You can change the subject if you like, but to the extent that the media affects public opinion (which is considerable) this race has been influenced by the powers that be at the HQs of our newspapers, TV stations, and magazines. Freedom of the press or cynical manipulation of public opinion? IMO, it's the latter. If you respect democracy, the public should simply be informed to make their own decisions.

"I know you like the support the sitting president, so I'll seriously feel for you if Kerry wins: you'll need to do some serious mental gymnastics to escape from the ideological hole you've wedged yourself into."

If Kerry wins he will be judged by what he does in office and likely not by how he got there.

As a teacher I do feel it necessary to send kids the message that their country is great, their political tradition rich and unique, and their chances of personal success high. What other message would you want the teachers of your son to send? I have to be positive. The commies at Berkeley may feel cute ripping America apart, but I'm more interested in helping kids find a happy life in our society.

So, yeah, I will have to find something to like about Kerry if he gets elected. For starters I'm going to go place a big fat wager on him to win tomorrow. That way if Kerry wins, I'll win some dough... if Bush wins, we'll all win.

I remember the days when people (you know who they are) said Bush is playing right into Osama's hands. Looks like the tape defies this rhetoric.

To be sure and in Big Will's defense, I've read much useless rhetoric from all sides. You can't pick and choose one little thing someone like Big Will said and denigrate him for cheapening the debate. If we could use this tactic, then I'd say pmbuko's cheap video of Bush achieves the same purpose. Just talk and have fun. Oh, and I've enjoyed everyone's comments here. I would like to participate more but I just don't have the time.